Right now the Supreme Court just heard arguments surrounding California's proposition 8. Otherwise known as the law that made illegal, again, for gay couples to get married. The case is being argued by private lawyers on both sides because California decided pretending its broken system of direct democracy is best ignored in the hopes it will go away.
Ah, but it won't go away and those defending this law may have a point. They argue that allowing gays to marry does injury to the state. How does it do injury to the state? Because by breaking with a "traditional" definition of marriage all marriages are invalidated.
Think this is crazy?
Well think back to the early twentieth century when we decided to abandon "traditional voting" by letting women do it too. No man has been able to bring himself to vote in defiled voting booths ever since.
Ah, but it won't go away and those defending this law may have a point. They argue that allowing gays to marry does injury to the state. How does it do injury to the state? Because by breaking with a "traditional" definition of marriage all marriages are invalidated.
Think this is crazy?
Well think back to the early twentieth century when we decided to abandon "traditional voting" by letting women do it too. No man has been able to bring himself to vote in defiled voting booths ever since.